iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Keystone XL Pipeline: Obama Says His Administration Has Made No Decision On Project

Keystone Xl Pipeline Obama

JIM KUHNHENN and MATTHEW DALY   10/26/11 08:15 PM ET   AP

DENVER — President Barack Obama said Wednesday his administration has made no decision on whether a Canadian company can proceed with plans for a transnational oil pipeline to Texas.

A protester during Obama's appearance at the University of Colorado Denver yelled out that the president should say no to the contested Keystone XL project.

Obama said his administration was looking into the issue but had made no decision. He told the protester: "I know your deep concern about it. We will address it."

Obama's comments came as a State Department official hinted that a decision on the pipeline may be delayed until next year. Officials have pledged to decide by the end of the year. The State Department has jurisdiction over the pipeline because it crosses an international border.

A senior State Department official, who asked not to be identified because the department was still reviewing the project, said, "While we are working towards a timely decision by the end of the year, our foremost commitment is to a thorough review and assessment of information and to make a decision based on the best available data and analysis."

The proposed pipeline has prompted protests nationally and demonstrators have been arrested in front of the White House. Demonstrators protested outside one of Obama's fundraisers Tuesday in San Francisco.

The pipeline would carry oil derived from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. The 1,700-mile pipeline would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.

In a related development, 13 Democratic lawmakers and a Democratic-leaning independent sent a Wednesday letter requesting that the State Department inspector general investigate the department's handling of the pipeline application.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., along with 11 House members, said they were disturbed by media reports that a company that performed an environmental review on behalf of the State Department had listed pipeline developer TransCanada as a "major client."

The lawmakers asked the inspector general to look at all contractual or financial relationships between the consultant, Houston-based Cardno Entrix, and TransCanada.

They also asked for a review of State Department emails involving a TransCanada lobbyist who had worked in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

Clinton told The Associated Press earlier this month that she had "no reason to believe" there was a conflict of interest involving the TransCanada lobbyist, Paul Elliott.

The underground pipeline would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada.

Supporters say the line could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil, while opponents say it would bring "dirty oil" that requires huge amounts of energy to extract and could cause an ecological disaster in case of a spill.

___

Daly reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Bradley Klapper in Washington contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

DENVER — President Barack Obama said Wednesday his administration has made no decision on whether a Canadian company can proceed with plans for a transnational oil pipeline to Texas. A proteste...
DENVER — President Barack Obama said Wednesday his administration has made no decision on whether a Canadian company can proceed with plans for a transnational oil pipeline to Texas. A proteste...
Filed by Chris Gentilviso  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 56
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
Robson
Apolitical / nonpartisan blogging on HP since 2005
03:56 PM on 11/07/2011
The oil and gas goes on a global market to maximize the enrichment of the speculators and drillers and has nothing to do with US independence on oil. When we permitted our commodities to go global through the money people and international trading exchanges it removed the relationship between nation, sovereignty and security and exchanged it for the profits for the 1%. This pipeline isn't going to lower costs for Americans. It will increase supply to the world and especially Asia, but in the process it puts our environment at risk and something much more precious than oil ----- fresh drinking WATER.
03:41 PM on 10/29/2011
"Cheaper tansportation/access to the Panama Canel so they can ship the gas to CHINA is the reason Canada wants this pipeline to Texas" is what I recently read.. Why should we put our environment at risk to assit them in making a bigger profit ?
12:01 PM on 10/28/2011
Cuba is going to start drilling off their oil rich coast , just miles from the Florida coast ..... But we continue to rely on foreign oil ..tks again liberals
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chebontenitkee
07:36 PM on 10/27/2011
Very simple, O: You vote for it, I vote against you. Last straw.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnd139
12:31 PM on 10/27/2011
It'll go. Be certain of that. Follow the money still holds true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhunkeyPhish
09:24 AM on 10/27/2011
It's not surprising they are waiting until after the election to vote on this.
photo
Lucile S
Lib and a truth lover.
10:18 AM on 10/27/2011
Until Nov. 2012? No it's too late. The TransCanada Corp. won't want to wait so long.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
glassjaw
08:52 AM on 10/27/2011
The Unionistas want it ,,,, it will provide 100s of thousands of jobs
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
06:22 PM on 10/27/2011
"it will provide 100s of thousands of jobs"

The State Dept estimates it will provide around 5000 jobs. Where are you getting your information?
D-Driller
my micro-bio is empty
01:42 AM on 10/27/2011
I can't believe Obama is even considering this. It should be an automatic veto. We don't need Canadian oil. We need our oil, drilled for and produced here in the US, not some foreign country, whether they border us or not. Canada is no real friend of the US, and hasn't been since the 1950's. Neither is Mexico, for that matter, but they have good lobbyists, so leave it to our government to support foreign countries above our own.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lulex
Made in Canada
12:14 AM on 10/27/2011
First nations people in Fort Chippawa Alberta are being poisoned by the water in the Athabasca contaminated by tar sands production.Kids died of cancers. Muskrats have all gone, elk and deer meat is contaminated and elders are afraid to eat it, medicinal plants no longer work, the water they used to drink now causes eczema like rashes when you simply touch it. Unlined storage ponds are leaking into the aquifers and our Federal Environmental Commissioner just blew the whistle on how poor the data is: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/mr_20111004_e_35773.html
It's not ethical. The pipe they did build leaked 14 times the first year! It's not safe or ethical!
10:26 PM on 10/27/2011
I've shared and posted this fabulous comment to Facebook, giving "lulex" credit due :)
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
11:08 PM on 10/26/2011
Opaque. But we must press on, and should the president rise to the occasion and vetoe XL, be prepared to support him to the hilt (overlooking all previous grouses).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Partisanship is a mental illness
11:07 PM on 10/26/2011
Here's the deal: the tar sand oil WILL be produced. It WILL be marketed.
This is not going to change regardless of whether there is a Keystone XL pipeline or not.
If we don't want it, the Chinese are going to take it.
10:52 AM on 10/27/2011
The Chinese have already bought three oil shale companies in Canada and want to get oil to a port city...Why to a Port? Read between the lines...Right now "it" is a North American oil exclusive.
In the future the price will be higher due to supply and demand...China has a large demand...Our environment (air and water) will be at risk. Our prices are raised. China gets most (all?) of the oil anyway.
02:17 AM on 11/19/2011
LAND OF THE 1000 OBAMAS ( OF THE 1000 DANCES SONG OF THE 1960'S SAME MUSIC, SAME LYRICS, A SLIGHT CHANGE IN TITLE): NA, NA, NA, NA NAN NA NA NAN NA NAH!
02:22 AM on 11/19/2011
HEY, 'BAM'! YOUR BROADWAY TRIPS ON A HELIOCOPTER COSTING $24,000 (DEPENDING ON INFLATION OR DEFLATION) WILL NEED GAS.
09:57 PM on 10/27/2011
Thank you for enlightening us. You may be right but surely you realize that this kind of defeatist attitude will only serve to ensure your prophecy is self-fulfilling. If you actually care about this issue, get involved and do something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sarah Cuse
nattering nabob of negativity
09:58 PM on 10/26/2011
there are no unsafe chemicals, just unsafe ways to use them. build the pipeline but build it safe - multple spill trays etc
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
09:25 PM on 10/26/2011
... ecological disaster

Isn't that the end of the sentence?
08:35 PM on 10/26/2011
The rhetoric against the XL pipeline is mostly hot air. More than a dozen oil and gas pipelines have been built across the Canada-US border, some more than 50 years ago. Collectively, they have an excellent safety record and have provided Americans with secure, efficient access to their largest single supply of oil and gas.

The heavy oil in the XL line will produce less than 15% more greenhouse gas than conventional oil. Oil from the tar sands is relatively dirty, but not by a big margin. It is much, much cleaner than the burning of coal extracted from the Appalachians (not to mention the devastating environmental effects of the clearance of mountaintops to access coal seams for strip mining).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:21 PM on 10/26/2011
This pipeline will be safer than many pipelines already crossing Ogallala aquifer. It will carry a viscous crude oil, which does not flow or penetrate the way a refined petroleum product (e.g., gasoline) does, and thus is less likely to cause serious damage should a spill occur.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lulex
Made in Canada
12:21 AM on 10/27/2011
The bituman travelling through is a QUARTZ based bituman. It scrapes the whole way as it travels. If you were to use a normal digger in the tar sands you'd have to replace it every 7 times you put it in the ground because the teeth get destroyed. The bituman contains creosote with benzo (a) pyrene, PaH's, trace metals etc. It's REALLY nasty stuff and there is no reasonable data existing to show long term design constraint requirements of the pipe. In fact, shoddy workmanship was noted by people in the industry for the sections that were already built. Read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/keystone-pipeline-construction-leaks_n_984662.html
D-Driller
my micro-bio is empty
01:49 AM on 10/27/2011
I agree - they are against it for all the wrong reasons. The reason they should be against it is that we don't need Canadian oil - we need our oil, drilled for and produced here, in the the US. Canada is no friend of the US, and it is insane to increase our trade deficit to buy Canadian oil, when we could keep the money here and increase American jobs. Remember, these are the same "allies" who wouldn't even send a medical unit to the Gulf War or Vietnam for that matter - we are supposed to support them? I see no reason to subsidize Canadian jobs with our money. Of course, Obama, useless as he is, doesn't see the opportunity he has here - without the plentiful oil sands production, costs may rise here in the US, which might actually provide the impetus for us to try to change our ways and have more renewables in our energy portfolio.
03:07 PM on 10/27/2011
Don't blame Canada for the mess your country is in. Bitter much?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
08:09 PM on 10/26/2011
I know this is a little off topic but (since HP always moderates that topic) I have to say:
Deniers are wrong about the science, but they are RIGHT about the politics! It is very fruterating to explain evert thing in detail only to have HP "erase" it!